Anyone here enjoying the hobbyist's meager fruits of "low" end camcorders and equipment? I'm wondering who is making the most of the cheap er/est stuff, creatively and semi-professionally, and what you use it for. And I don't mean for animation, or your Bcam. Cheap cam ceiling is $2000, but ideal is under $1000. I asked this one over at Camcorderinfo, thought it was the most appropriate venue, but I'll try it out here as well. Just curious.

I own a PDX10 and would like a second for matching video and 16:9, but I'm also thinking about a pair of some other cam for less money, disregarding the 16:9 desire, to be used towards an ongoing educational/training dvd/video project. The new cams' footage does not have to match already shot footage. Who, for example, is winning hearts and minds with a couple of Optura 20s?

My idea of fun. Thanks very much in advance.

Shawn

How low-end do you want to go? Did you know that some low-end miniDV cams don't even have filter threads? I have some really low-end models listed on my website. They seemed "okay" for their low prices.

Folks here (myself included) tend to spend a great deal of time typing about the usage, capabilities and attributes of the sexy prosumer muscle cams.

But the unvarnished truth is that a feature's viewer never sees the camera. Yes, s/he sees bad camera work, bad sound and, most of all, bad story. Yes, better cameras producer better images. But they cannot produce better stories or better camera work. I have seen many excellent works produced using cameras costing $1,000 or less.

Go as low as your experience will allow. I'm interested in what people are doing, or have done, for however much money, to reiterate.

Yes, Ken! Thank you. Precisely where I would like to see this thread go. Who's doing what with what little?
I've been shooting this training project with a single trv740 d8 cam, in classrooms, under florescents. The cam belongs to the man on whose materials the videos will be based. The close ups of hands and graphics on tabletops is good, skin and colors are acceptable, though the 740 hasn't any white balance. I'm struggling to get the sound set up to it's best w/o much of a budget, but that's reflective of my inexperience, not my lack of posh equipment. Would like to get a pair of decent cams for this under $1000 each. that are at least as decent (7 lux) in a classroom amount of light. Recommendations are appreciated, but I'm mostly just relating my low budget experiences, and am interested in yours.

I wouldn't consider the TRV740 a low end cam. And Digi8 is probably less prone to drop-outs.

Listen--

No matter what cheapo video camera you have sitting on your desk, it's still capable of better images than any of the cameras used to make great movies prior to the late 1950s.

If you have a great story, tell it with whatever is at your disposal.

I just watched The Battle of Algiers, a 1966 Academy Award Nominee that won 11 international "best picture" awards. (I heard about it on NPR yesterday--apparently, the Pentagon has been holding screenings.) Its camerawork was fraught with shoddy operation, shaky, out-of-focus footage, typical of the European style of the 1960s. (Though the subject was French, the production was Italian.) But its story was so compelling, the production value was rendered irrelevant.

Think this isn't true 40 years later? Think again. Dogville, directed by Lars von Trier, was all shot handheld, documentary style, with long lenses, and yet, it's the most audacious, gripping movie of the past five years.

There are plenty of great examples of talented filmmakers wringing every bit of quality out of their DV cameras. 28 Days Later is only the latest example of XL1s's being put to judicious use on a major feature.

But at the end of the movie--if you've held on to your audience for that long--it won't be the image quality they'll remember.

On a shoot I did last year, one of the producers and I both had pocket sized Canon still cameras capable of taking short video clips. The producer told me he was interested in shooting an entire movie just using his little Canon digital camera, each shot being limited to 15 seconds.

There is probably a great movie that can be made this way. Likely it will be most suited for web distribution where the image compression won't be such an issue. But if the story and acting is memorable, it's unlikely anyone will carp on the shoddy video quality.

Shawn,
For starters while you're waiting for replies, look at some of our Lady X Films episodes (link is in my signature). Look at the gear listed on each episode's screening page -after- you watch the episode. Since our producers come from a variety of backgrounds (students, semi-pro's, hobbyists, etc.) they are using a wide variety of cameras and equipment to create their episodes. You may find some of the results inspiring.

I started shooting with a Sony TRV525 D-8 and a cheap Sony hand mike. An artist friend of a friend, watching my vacation documentary on Portugal said "I could be watching CBC!" That's the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those outside our borders. Entry level DV is so good compared to anything the average joe could afford ten years ago that illustrating a good story with steady shots, thoughtful editing and decent light makes for highly viewable content.

David Hurdon

Talk about cheap!

For the last 3 years, I've been playing with my TRV320 (D8 again).
I've added a tripod with Sony remote control, the Sony Infra-red receiver (to play my videos wireless on my 32" WEGA TV set), a wide-angle adapter, polarizer and UV filters.
Then I made a foam windscreen for the built-in mics, a "hood" for the LCD screen, and I learned how to bypass all the preset adjustments in order to get a more natural picture overall.
I use all possible manual controls to get correct focus and exposure. I try to compose pictures carefully, and zoom or pan only when it serves the subject. (That took 3 years to learn)
I edit on el-cheapo ULead Video Studio 5.0, but I systematically avoid any complicated special effect. I use regular cuts and crossfades mostly.
Due to lack of manual white balance on D8, I spend a lot of time in color correction in post. But my original shots are rarely that bad. And the final pictures are sometimes impressive.
On my last vacations, I achieved quasi-documentary quality, and I'm very proud of it.
I don't know if I'd be prouder had I done this with state-of-the-art machines like VX2000 or PD150...
It's all in the fun of making great things with nothing. Really.

The TRV950 is the consumer version of the PDX10 I believe. The footage should cut together perfectly because they have the same optics (like the VX2000 and PD150).

A lot of consumer cameras are pretty good nowadays. I would focus on getting steady shots and good audio since they are a lot more noticeable then the look that consumer cams give. Everyone notices shaky shots and poor audio.

Yeah, guys!

It's interesting, Glen, how actual film makers employ "documentary" techniques to look like easy hand held video footage, eg more "realistic", while we video folk must swing hard towards proven film professional standard looks to be taken seriously in the markets. This, I think, is that democratization we're always talking about in effect. Video is striving to outgrow funniest home videos, film is letting it's hair down. Or, "Nothing is true, Everything is permitted," as my man Hassan I Sabbah used to say.
What, does Everyone begin with D8 :-) ???

Absolutely, Norm and David, vacations ought generally to beget documentaries. I traveled solo in South East Asia last winter, wishing I had brought SOMETHING that shot video, like the trv19 I just got in the mail today, or a gs70. I bought the trv19 to have as deck for the pdx10, but having played around with it for a couple of hours, I'm thinking it might be just fine for well lit close quarters interview shoots, and/or careful black/white work. Am eager to see how it does in florescent lit classrooms, the bulk of my locations for this training video. I'm needing to phase out the 740.

Ken, it was good to take a lick at the Lady X series, or at least the first one, to begin. James Bond action isn't quite my cup of tea, but I got to see video in a new light. Well worthwhile ( I did take a peek at cams used for some of the others in the series, couldn't help myself; I'm anxious to see the trv30 work, next to the rest, the stills look great, but I'm especially anxious to see the 950 work, as I become intimate with my pdx10) as well as instructive.

I'm wanting to investigate the local tv channel for this rural northern californian town I live in, find out what's passable for broadcast (small docs, sound and image collage, etc), while I'm here. Thanks for contributing, gents.
Let's keep those enlightening anecdotes coming! Where are those skateboard/video freaks?..........

8+}

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/chanhuangfilms/Trouble-in-Sherwood/troubleinsherwood.wmv

That's the movie I did for my graduation project. I procrastinated so I worked straight for 3 days to make that film before school ended.

I used a Samsung SCD51 and a TRV22, some lego, and masking tape I made that movie. The only thing that cost me was fishing line, which I didn't end up using. The Samsung camera is normally a very bad camera but it had more macroness than the TRV22. I switched cameras somewhere along and the white balance shifted. The camera's auto features were a real pain so you see the background shifting colors and sometimes the white balance changes. If I had thought of using the TRV22 then I could have set those things to manual. The Samsung had a cheesy focus dial which I used to pull focus. It... worked. I probably had decent depth of field because the Lego figures are so close and the camera is zoomed in.

I could have given that movie a bit more polish and started off with a better script and stuff like that. It was my first film ever so I'm happy enough. Hopefully I will find the time + Lego to do another film. I worked on the film with a friend who has Lego and I don't have ANY Lego at all.

Certainly a Lego stop motion film is in the reach of many many people. Check out similar films at brickfilms.com. Filmmaking has certainly become much more accessible!

2- At school I used to run a video production club. We didn't do anything too creative but did some highly technical things like doing a multi-camera production (mixed together live with a rented video mixer). The camera we used to own was a Digital8 TRV120. It was a wonderful camera but unfortunately it got stolen. Before that we bought a TRV22 so it wasn't too bad that the digi8 cam got stolen. I prefer the TRV120 over the TRV22 although the TRV22 has some advantages.

Get Glen some LEGOS!

Your address for brickshelf isn't working for me, so I'll have to go the long way through the front door. I had no idea the lengths to which people are putting their legos.
I'm not immediately into animation, stop motion and that sort of thing, but are you familiar with the work of The Brothers Quay, or the guy that influenced them whose name escapes me for the moment, Jan Svenkmaer or something like that? The Brothers do/did some rather incredible if a little bleak work. Great stuff. Also, have you seen a film called TETSUO: THE IRON MAN? Amazing, hilariously disturbed Japanese b/w movie that came out in the late 80s, early 90s, which show cases stop motion animation of humans as well as industrial waste metal to the nth degree. Would love to know what their budget was, it seems as though hyper b movie acting, a pile of rubbish, and painstakingly intensive camera work, was all that made this gem. Perhaps it cost more than it looks like. Hope not.
I am loving my trv19. Experimenting with black and white. I find video noise to be so much more acceptable in black and white. It feels....appropriate. One of these days I'll put together a little something and post it.

Amazing little video, Glenn! ("Brickshelf")
You seem to have taken control of that Samsung!
Lego animation is not easy, but your composition is very good.
I like the movements and the slow-mo parts of the fight.
Takes a lot of patience and attention to details.
Congrats!

My Son and his buddied work up on the Penobscott river durring the summer as guides for Moxie and they take my old Sharp 650U and shoot footage of the rapids running and night time goings on at the camps. For a 400 dollar camcorder they come back with some great footage every fall. Next year tyhey will take a trv-17 and the sharp and go for more footage.
It is amazing how good the footage from these inexpensive camcorders looks.They run the footage through premiere and make dvd's to send to family and friends.
I shoot bands and surfing with my 950 and the footage is great on that also. I have also done a few weddings for family and friends
KennJ

but are you familiar with the work of The Brothers Quay, or the guy that influenced them whose name escapes me for the moment, Jan Svenkmaer or something like that? The Brothers do/did some rather incredible if a little bleak work. Great stuff. Also, have you seen a film called TETSUO: THE IRON MAN?
I'll check out those films out!

Would love to know what their budget was, it seems as though hyper b movie acting, a pile of rubbish, and painstakingly intensive camera work, was all that made this gem. Perhaps it cost more than it looks like. Hope not.

Yeah the acting was pretty bad. That's what I get for having friends who can't act I suppose. The only things that cost something while shooting this film was living expenses, travelling expenses (gas + subway tickets), and some fishing line which I didn't end up using (too thick and not enough time to rotoscope it out).

---------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the feedback norm.

I have 2 cameras, a GL2 and a ZR20. I still use the ZR20 as the second cam in all the weddings I do (a couple/month) and get excellent results. The ZR20 is the long shot camera, and as long as I properly white-balance the cameras and make sure there is enough light, the quality is almost imdistinguishable in the finished video. I've never had any complaints yet (no one has even questioned the camera, other then to say how small it is).

Cheers,
Mark Jefferson

I use a Sony dcr-trv16e which sells for about £450 in the UK and have had excellent results. We have another 2 short films in the works that will be filmed with the Sony.

I like the look of the footage after it has been editted and colour corrected and have had some nice things said about it. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what camera you use just as long as your footage is stable and have a good story to tell.

I plan on buying an XM2 at the end of the year but will still use the Sony as a 2nd camera.

Regards

Terry
www.twisted-films.4t.com

It's amazing how much you can accomplish w/ DV. The average television viewer would never know the difference unless you pointed it. Case in point, MTV uses PD150s for the majority of its shows. It only uses Beta cams for a few shows. For a network that is known for being fruggal, DV is a godsend. Just hand your producers a cam. It also, by default, puts full creative control in the hands of the producers.

The same goes for the big screen, as in the case w/ Eric Eason's Sundance winner "Manito." The 78 min feature cost him only $24,000 as opposed to the $16,000 that sent him back for his first project, a 10 min short shot on 16mm film.

I totally agree w/ Robert's opinion on "Algiers." I saw it in a film class a few years ago and was totally drawn into the story. The content wins you over, and you forget the shakey footage, the B&W, and the French dialouge. I highly recommend to the film. And if you need a term paper on it, I have one of those.

I've wanted to see The Battle of Algiers for years, have yet to find a copy. I got a Fifty of the Greatest Movies Ever sort of book out of my grandmother's closet when I was in high school. Through it I discovered some surprisingly strange and highly influential films: Godard's Weekend, Fellini's 8 1/2, Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, 2001, and Battle of Algiers.
Anyone ever see Chris Marker's Sans Soleil (1982)? This one makes the top five of my top ten list. Without going into many of it's many details, it's basically a filmmaker's 16mm travel footage from Tokyo and Africa which he brings together through editing and narrative. It touches upon memory, filmmaking, perception, time, Hitchcock, sciencefiction, leftist politics, cultural "eccentricities", and more. Fascinating and, well, just plain genius if you ask me. Probably THE most thought provoking film know to me. And it's just travel footage and ideas. No gobs of money, no stellar equipment. Marker certainly works with dv these days. He has a little cam of some sort, says he loves it , doesn't go anywhere without it. This is the guy that made La Jetee (1964?), the short film that inspired a number of filmmakers, Terry Gilliam and his 12 Monkeys among them. These are my people. Writers and thinkers who do film and video too, and create epiphanies out of a small amount of resources. Of course he's French and I believe France handles money for the arts differently than the US. Nevertheless.

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : Listen--

On a shoot I did last year, one of the producers and I both had pocket sized Canon still cameras capable of taking short video clips. The producer told me he was interested in shooting an entire movie just using his little Canon digital camera, each shot being limited to 15 seconds.

-->>>


That's funny, I had the same aspirations for my Sony digital still camera -- invest in a large memory stick and shoot consecutive 15-second scenes...

What I ended up doing, though, is using the 15-second mpegs for rotoscoping experiments. 15 secs is a great length for a filmstrip file in Photoshop, and exporting the filmstrip from Premiere at NTSC resolution fuzzes out the picture enough that even some simple, thought-out filter use can give you some nice effects.

(and yes, Premiere can be fussy with mpeg files -- but if you drop it in the timeline and immediately export it as a filmstrip, you can typically just work with the flm file with no hassles)

The company I work for made a purchase of a Canon XL1 for the weight factor mostly, a lot of the camera work that I do is chasing people around and shoot them having fun on company sponsered trips.
We purchased a couple of Canon ZR10's to hand out to others to get some shots of various parts of the trip that I could not be at.

These cameras have really turned out to be a great purchase. I have worked with a few outside editors and they were blowen away by the quailty of the footage, from both cameras, One editor /shooter even made a purchase of the Canon ZR series himself.

I have used the ZR10 camera with an underwater bag to shoot people snorkeling. We have also used it on many water rafting trips as well (with the under water bag).

So I would say if your looking for a camera under a $1,000, my recommendation would be any of the Canon ZR series.

Best of luck

This might be the first recommendation of the ZR series I've come across. Fantastic! Not that I'm off to get one, but it's great to hear the idea of ANY camera/tool having it's own sweet spot in action. This seems like the obvious philosophy to have, but I was just thinking that one could acquire a selection of the better consumer cams, each with a slightly different sweet spot, and collectively have a highly flexible well rounded small production apparatus that can otherwise be found in various single much more expensive semipro cams, for about the same money. Of course, a really good low light ability might be difficult to fulfill, you'd be perhaps more open to more mechanical and technical problems, as well as more accessories for incompatible brands......But it would be more like a stocked tool chest rather than have a few Leathermans around. Something like that! For instance, by the end of December, I should have saved enough for either one Pana dvc80, or one Optura Xi and one GS100k. I'm toggling between the two ideas, and it's interesting what sorts of reasoning I'm coming up with for both. The more I think and learn, the more I realize I can't really make the wrong decision, I can only think in new ways and adapt. And that's why I started this thread in the first place, to help generate a picture for folks of how the limitations of the equipment become, well, culture, in effect. It can lead to innovation on every level. We are familiar with DOGMA 95, yes? This is what it was and is about. The intention wasn't to provide a way to excuse filmmakers from being their most professional or doing their very best work and to feel ok about amateurish sloppiness, as I've heard a number of people retort, surprisingly. Quite the contrary, it was/is the opportunity, through restriction, to explore truly new ways of doing things.

It's funny that you mention Dogma 95; I was on their website the other day, and I read their manifesto. I like the general philosphy, but the rules seemed somewhat arbitrary to me... and in, at least, one case, just silly. One of the rules is "Genre films are not acceptable." What does that mean exactly? The only Dogma 95 film I've had the pleasure of seeing is "Mifune"- which I really liked, but it IS a romantic comedy, and if romantic comedy doesn't qualify as a genre, what does? It seems to me that most films can be classified in one genre or another. I suspect by genre, they mean fantasy,horror and science fiction- why not just say so? Why do they insist that films be made in color?
One thing I realized while reading the manifesto was that I will never be part of any kind of movement. I hate rules, especially when it comes to art.
Oh, and just to stay on topic, Right now I'm using a pana dv53. I am going to shoot a silent short on it later this winter.
MG

Well, I think the the rule means you can't go into a project intending to make something that is "romantic" and a "comedy", for example. The rules stress that EVERYTHING going into the film be entirely character derived, all plot and plot points, all "moods" or atmospherics, all locations used, etc. If, because of your characters, you create something that resembles what many people would qualify as a romantic comedy, and most viewers are quick to qualify, hence genres, so be it. In other words, you can't force this "romantic comedy" pretense on your characters, it wouldn't be, shall we say, organically grown.
The color rule is a bit puzzling, I have to admit. Perhaps they were feeling like b/w was too much of an "optical" effect and/or would take away from the reality in the film. They also felt that much of filmmaking relied on simpleton effects and wanted to push themselves out of standard conventional procedures and make films of substance, as well as help standard filmmaking practices out of industrial deadlock. Some filmmakers have made letter perfect Dogma films, I suppose, while others did only mostly so. Think of it as a challenge to yourself, to write poetry in strict meter rather than freestyle, as opposed to a group to join or not join.

Shawn,
Where are you gonna get the GS100 from?

Not sure, Dave. Another fellow on this site said he could probably help me out. There also is a site called pricejapan.com, which I'm told is reputable and reliable, and has a good price. I, actually, am thinking wild thoughts along the lines of selling my PDX10 and getting, not the dvc80, but a DVX100. The timing for such a thing would be just right for me. I shall miss my pdx10, at least for now, and something very much like it will be very appropriate as second cam to the likes of the dvx, perhaps the gs100k, next year.
But to finish answering your question, Dave, ask Alan Rejoso over at the mx/dv forum here, he might have some cam acquisition pointers for you.

All,

Okay, this is my first post on this forum. I normally hang out on the Sonic Foundry (now Sony) Vegas forum. I'm a hobbiest, pro wanna-be living in Hawaii. Like so many others, I have caught the video editing bug and am having loads of fun.

My camcorder is a Sony TRV-120, Digital 8. I edit with Vegas 4 (have used most all of the entry level programs too), shoot all my own stuff (not the best of cameramen for sure), and focus on home videos. I scan in photos with a $40 Onetouch Visioneer scanner, and output to Digital 8 or VHS tape or to my Sony 510A burner. My first and biggest show was a 3 day shoot on the big island (Hawaii) following (and crewing for) a friend as he ran the Ultraman event (includes a 6 mile swim in the ocean and 90 mile bike race up a volcano on the first day, 160 mile bike over two volcano's on the second day, and double marathon on the 3rd day, yeah he's a lunatic). The show turned out to be about 80 minutes long (2 years ago). Most of my recent projects have been sound on slide shows for relatives and my daughters graduation and an action video of our family vacation to Florida this past summer. I have one more slide show to do by next month for our unit Christmas party and then a wedding in May (first one for me). I don't charge for anything as I'm still learning the craft (except cost reimbursement) and, I don't work on a time schedule...I edit when I feel like it :-)

Reading the posts of others here is very inspiring. I guess most of you know what I mean when I say that, for me, it's not about the money. I do this because I can create something that has an emotional impact on others...and on me. What a great hobby!

Looking forward to more.

Aloha,
Randy

I've been told the new Canon Elura 50 is a great camera for the money. 540 lines res and super sharp lens along with it's low-mass approach make for a fun run-and-gun camera to take anywhere.......matter of fact- I may get one myself.

Anyone have one of these 50's- what do you think of it?

Thanks! Really enjoying the posts. Lots to look into on this board.
Randy

That little movie was the bomb! Well done and quite funny. Now
that's what I should've done with my LEGO back in the days.
Hmmm.. my little brothers still have my Lego <g>

Did you guys see the other stopmotion movie (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5423) that was made
by Josh Bass here @ DVi? That one really rocks the cradle as
well!

I'd say you two are our stopmotion experts here! <g>

Hi guys. I've been following this thread. I do find intriguing Shawn's idea of collecting some better consumer cams, each with its own sweet spot, and using it where it would be most appropriate. Oh, the flexibility.
Anyways, I'm writing in to let y'all know that I'm just finishing up a low-light comparison of a handfull of the consumer mini-dv cams out now which are in the $300 - $700 range. Now, I'm sure this is something any of you could've done, but seeing as no one has (with current models anyway, that I know of) and I'm looking for a cam in this range -- with low light capabilities a concern -- I went ahead and did it myself. I was originally only doing this for myself to help with a purchase, but the results were so interesting that I just had to share.
The factors I looked at are the average luminance (or brightness) of a still using a histogram, image sharpness, color desaturation, and grain size. Without giving too much away, I was surprised to find how consistent the manufacturers are between models so far as the low light image. There was more variation between brands than there was between models, with one exception: I was surprised to see that the overall best image was produced by one of the cheapest cams compared, and the overall worst was produced by a more expensive model of the same brand. And I found a gem for the movie maker on a budget.
Of course all this is subjective. I'm just going to pass on what I saw. If I can help just one person here to avoid a purchase mistake, or help them to find that cam with the sweet spot for their application, that's fine. And that's all. For now.

It might be interesting, Dave, to compare your results where the models exist, with those of B&H/Camcorderinfo.com's current analysis of camcorders by price band:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/d/Reviews&level_b=Camcorder.htm

There are three price categories studied so far and more to come, in both good and low light, with images.

David Hurdon

David,
Those *are* my subjects. I just took the time to organize it,
run the luminance tests, magnify stills, and catalog the results.
In the process, I ignored cost, number of pixels, CCD size, manufacturer, "nightshot", et cetera, and focused only on image quality.
Like I said, anyone could've done it. My summary will be for the person who can't/won't take the time or the hobbiest who may not have histogram/magnification tools.
Regards.

So can you tell us some more on this, Dave? Especially the gem
for the movie maker sounds interesting...

Dave,
I hope you take the time to use each camcorder at its best, and not shoot "Full Automatic" like Robin did at B&H.
For instance, in the low light test of Sony low-end cams, if you leave the SteadyShot on (default setting), you'll have heavy grain because the shutter speed is kept at 1/100... Turn it OFF and you get good low light picture.

Norm,
Unfortunately, what I looked at are those very same B&H images
you mentioned.
You make a good point about the tests Robin did not being exactly fair. In looking at the posts Robin got regarding the testing procedures, the reaction was a mixed bag, with some people finding value in the results for those who just want to point and shoot. Part of the problem, I know, was lack of manual exposure control on many of the models. For example, I believe the most expensive model tested -- a Sony -- has no manual shutter control. Someone made the comment to me that most people buying these cameras would only use the auto mode so, for them, this is how they would prefer the tests be done.
I know there were many posts there where people complained of not being able to see anything at all in the test images other than black. I must say, the tests *were* done in quite dim light. They say it was 15 lux, which is what, maybe like a dark moonlit night? I've heard that the average lux in an American home is 120 lux. Luckily, I was able to see the test results quite clearly.
And I saw that there were major differences between brands as far as sharpness and grain. I do wish I knew what the shutter speeds were. I'm going to make a seperate post regarding the speed issue to make sure that the results aren't grossly unfair.
Now, Norm, is it all the Sony 1-chippers that are limited to 1/100th? Or which models do you know of?
or

Rob, before I get into any more about the gem, I want to try to find out more about this shutter speed/fairness issue that Norm brought up.

Dave,

I was refering to all the Sony cams (and other brands too) that use an Electronic Image Stabiliser, as opposed to the more expensive Optical Image Stabiliser which does not influence the shutter speed. I discovered that limitation on my TRV320 (D8), but soon learned that all EIS equipped camcorders had the same behaviour (1/100 shutter) to avoid blurred image in movement.

Then, on a french Web site, I found a procedure to trick the shutter speed down to a normal 1/60 with SteadyShot On, and I now manage to get VERY good indoor shots without disabling the EIS. I also always use the "Soft Portrait" AE program to get less edge enhancement artifacts and richer colors.

What Robin did at B&H was turn the cam On and shoot as is.
Anyone can expect poor colours and heavy grain in these conditions if they use anything but a VX2000!

Norm,
So you're saying that all the Sony, Sharp, JVC, and Panasonic cams with EIS have their bottom limit at 1/100th? Now, off hand, I'm not sure which of those cameras in Robin's tests have EIS, but from what I gather from you're saying is that, all the ones that do have the EIS could be compared -- maybe not so much
as absolute low light reach -- but seeing as they all had the same "handicap", they should still be comparable fairly *between themselves* as to brightness (i.e. measured luminance) of image and tendency to form grain?
Regarding the complaints from Robin's viewers that they were unable to bring up any low-light test images on their monitors -- you know they said "everything was just black boxes" -- were you able to see them okay?
I am glad that you brought up the shutter issue before I passed along my "findings" only later to wind up with egg on my face due to the original test setup being grossly unfair.

In comparison, if Robin tested cars for fuel economy, would she omit to use the overdrive gear in the transmission of those equipped with it and only compare their performance in 4th gear?... Well it does make a difference! I want to know what it can do at its best.

Every camcorder has its limitations, and if you take the time to learn how to overcome them, then you can achieve better pictures than the default settings will allow.

As for the low-light test images on CamcorderInfo's site, my computer shows me some very dark pictures from which I can faintly distinguish the test pattern. Even the darkest ones reveal something: none is totally black.

Norm, I appreciate your input on this whole matter, as I've said.
You may or may not know that I've done what I could to ascertain the particulars of the individual cameras' programmed reactions to the situations they were placed in. Despite my throwing it out there for input from actual owners, I haven't had much success as far as concrete helpful feedback. My next step is to go audition the ostensible "winner" myself, and if I find out that this "Cam X" was actually running at 1/100th second, I'm gonna call a spade a spade and go forth with what I've found. I figure if no cam was shooting at faster than 1/100th -- and I doubt any were -- and this cam more-or-less ran the table: no sense in not declaring it. Like I said, this is all predicated on what I find to be the "winners' " actual response to 15 lux. (I hope that the cams in this range are able to report their shutter speeds; I would think so, but I won't know for sure till I try.)

"Then, on a french Web site, I found a procedure to trick the shutter speed down to a normal 1/60 with SteadyShot On, and I now manage to get VERY good indoor shots without disabling the EIS. "

Norm,

I'd be interested in knowing what this trick is.

Thanks in advance.

Joe Kras
St. Louis, MO USA

Hi again.
I just heard from a helpful guy on another thread that his
not-expensive 1CCD cam has video gain that goes up to +18dB.
Just wondering. Do all or most of these "low end" cams have gain available to use when the lighting gets low? I had thought this was something found mostly on the higher end.

Having just bought an Optura Xi for just over the $1000 mark I feel this counts. It seems like I'm cheating to suggest this as its such a great camera. A quantum step up from my ZR10 - which I loved.

The Optura Xi may just be my next cam, unless Pana USA brings in the NV-GS100 at a fair price. But by that time, the Xi will probably have even a cheaper street price. :)

PS: a quick and dirty way of testing a cam's low light is to go into manual mode, but use all the auto features except fixing the shutter at 1/60. Use the same light; same TV for playback. The easiest way to do this is bring along a miniDV tape. Then play the tape back with your cam and your TV at your leisure. Just don't forget to talk into the recordings of which cam is being tested. Like I said, it's quick and dirty, but it should give you a good idea about the video quality in lower light. :)

To Joe Kras and all others:
(Adapted from a french website: http://www.digital8.fr.st/)

Do you want best of both worlds?

SteadyShot electronic stabilizer ON and 1/50 shutter speed (1/60 NTSC)?

Try this:

1. Make sure SteadyShot is ON and Aperture is in Auto mode.
2. Turn Camera OFF.
3. Put lens cover over the lens.
4. Turn camera back ON with the lens cover on. This forces the shutter down to 1/50 PAL (1/60 NTSC).
5. Switch to manual aperture and dial the iris control down 4 to 5 steps from max to reduce gain. Leave iris control on MANUAL.
6. Remove lens cover, adjust aperture and focus properly.

Voilà!

You should be at 1/50 shutter speed (1/60 NTSC) WITH SteadyShot ON.
Ideal for long shots from the back of a church for example, even on a tripod.

Note: If you switch the cam OFF or go back to Auto-Iris, you must go all over that procedure again, as it will resume to its default setting (1/100 NTSC) with SteadyShot ON.

Dave,
As far as I know, most consumer camcorders combine the gain control with the iris control. That is, the iris will open step by step from f22 or f16 (closed) to f1.6 or f1.7, then electronic GAIN will be applied by 3dB increments up to +18dB. So the "wide open" position (f1.6) is not the max position of the aperture dial. It's the 6th or 7th notch down from max.

Don't be shy about them Xi s, guys! What do you think? Speech! Speech!